Jun 4 2011:
SR:
most scientific answer:
We don't know why we have laws of physics.
more logical answer:
"why" refers to a "reason": the question may be irrelevant, as there doesn't need to be a telos.

grammatical:
"Law" in physics is something else as "law" of a country. A bit confusing, but that's due to language.
So in physics: no need for a law maker
in politics and society: need for a law maker

[next one is of topic, so admin: feel free remove this if you think this has no contributory value]
SR: If you are unable to place your own thoughts (about what you think the answer is) between brackets (i.e. temporarily release the assumption that what you hold to be true as facts), you will have hard times understanding what other people think about it (the questions you ask).

I think you try and ask questions to "prove" we should be Muslim. Let me tell you this: your dogmatic approach has little to no effect when it comes to convincing.

I hope you can understand my point of view. (I admit I hereby failed to ignore you, as I fear you will reply with more questions that in your opinion would need me to conclude to convert to Islam)

Jun 5 2011:
Good point with mentioning the difference between Law in Physics and Society.
Laws of physics are not something imposed by someone.

They are our observation of the matter around us. There might be event no laws of physics as such. Laws of physics are our way of describing the world. Indeed, as religion uses the notion of "god" for description of the universe, and they say god is the thing we can't understand. Similarly, scientists describe the universe with the notion of laws of physics, and they say reason for laws of physics are something we yet don't undertand.

To sum up, religion has god, and science has laws of physics. By purpose; Laws of physics = God = Mythes of different cultures = Description for our universe.

The only difference is that there are ways to show laws of physics are real (at least for us as matters in this world), but there is no way to show god or other mythes are real.

Jul 16 2011:
I am interested on which premise the calculation of 99.9% is made. I am not touting Islam, in fact I am directly opposed but statistical near-certainties based on imaginary numbers and limited calculations can't possibly be so accurate.

""Law" in physics is something else as "law" of a country."
Its clearly correct. Relevance? law of a country was only an example to better understanding the topic.

"So in physics: no need for a law maker"
Yes, what about out of physics? This is not a physics question.

"SR: If you are unable to place your own thoughts"
Sorry, right. OK. I hope TED had such instructions documented.

"I think you try and ask questions to "prove" we should be Muslim."
No. my try is other thing. My try is to people have a true and correct Image of truthful Islam and people understand Islam is different of Muslim. With no care that if they convert or do not convert. I agree your view about my approach. And I am looking for better approaches.
Do not fear. You claimed you are passionate about truth. You should know truth is not cheap and you should pay expensive prices for truth. And first price is leaving prejudice about what you do not know or you are not sure about it. The distance of truth and lie is 4 finger.(between eye and ear).
[if this is off topic here please lets not continue here.]

Jul 16 2011:
This is well said and well focused. The purpose of this debate is not a discussion of life after death but the discussion of why this universe has laws. Keep your eyes on the prize SR and focus on the task at hand.

Apr 19 2011:
yes possible.
consider a lawyer with no need to set a law. and set law when needed. lawyer can set law but now not need to set.
it is possible but not important. what now exist is laws of physics. so this question (lawyer with no law) is useless.
the important question is:
is it possible a law without any lawyer?
our world is controlled by laws of physics and these laws shaped our universe including earth after Big Bang during Billions of years and we think the maker of world are these laws.
but who is the lawyer?

Apr 19 2011:
not always any lawyer needs to be accredited.
it depends on the level of power of lawyer.
if the power of a lawyer is unlimited higher than power of all governments together, then that lawyer not need to be accredited.
peoples who their job is lawyer are under control of power of government and are forced to be accredited.
a powerful lawyer who set law for universe no need to be credited by a government of a very very small part of universe (earth)

Apr 20 2011:
nature is all material.
when a lawyer is not material it can exist beyond the material and universe and vacuum.
who enforce laws of nature itself is not part of nature.
it is very very larger and more powerful than nature and universes.
if you not limit lawyer to material lawyer, you get your answer.
lawyer of universe is bigger than universe.

Apr 20 2011:
"nature is all material.
when a lawyer is not material it can exist beyond the material and universe and vacuum."
In that case, your analogy breaks completely, because lawyers exist within the boundaries of law, and law exists within the boundary of lawyers.

Besides, you aren't really talking about "lawyers" if you give them the role of "law definers". That's a role for politicians... but even that breaks the analogy, because politicians are (theoretically...) bound by the laws they give.

Apr 20 2011:
Dear Vasil Rangelov,
law exist within the Kingdom of power of lawyer.
lawyer is not limited within boundaries of law, while exist and control within and out the boundary of law.
why you think lawyers exist within the boundaries of law?
lawyer means who set and execute law in universe. (maybe lawyer is not a suitable word)
anyway name is not important if you understand me. now I checked dictionary. one meaning of lawyer is who define and set law.
this is about laws and lawyer of universe. not about laws and lawyers of a country.
the lawyer of universe is not limited in universe.

Apr 23 2011:
"this is about laws and lawyer of universe. not about laws and lawyers of a country.
the lawyer of universe is not limited in universe."
But that's precisely my point. Because of this vital difference, your analogy is completely invalid, and you therefore can't use it to argue your point.

"why you think lawyers exist within the boundaries of law?"
Because that's the case in the context of which the analogy is presented - a lawyer/judge/policeman/politician/citizen/inhabitant who breaks the law is still a "criminal". If that's not the case in the universe (which is the thesis you're presenting), the analogy is not applicable.

"now I checked dictionary. one meaning of lawyer is who define and set law."
The point stands. Regardless of what word you use to label someone who defines and sets law, the fact is in the context of your analogy (our world), the one who fits the label is bound by the same laws (s)he defines and sets.

Apr 26 2011:
That's slightly better (it doesn't assume the law enforcer is also the definer)... but whatever you call the "law enforcer", we still go back to the fact that he is part of the system, bound by the laws he is enforcing. If he is above the law - if the laws don't apply to him - we go back to something else I've said before - that he is a tyrant, or at best, an a-hole.

If you mean "administrator" in the "computer administrator" sense, I should also add that once a computer is started, it doesn't need a human intervention to run. Even if we assume we had a designer who created the universe and started it, with all laws and everything, that doesn't mean he's still out there monitoring and affecting us. And let's also keep in mind that just as "the computer universe" may claim to have a designer in our image (if we had programs that are that mature), and we may claim we have a designer in God's image, that still leaves the question of what created God? And what created the creator of God? And so on and so on.

If in God's viewpoint no conscious being/force created him... then God is an atheist.

Apr 27 2011:
"it doesn't need a human intervention"
computer is working by laws of physics. if law not exist, no atom will work properly and then no molecule will work proper and then no material including CPU, Hard,.. so all atoms of a computer needs monitoring and affecting to work proper. its like saying of a fish: when I am in a box of water so I do not need any more anyone to take care of me. (fish can start working but if no monitoring and cleaning water after some days fish will die)

", it doesn't need a human intervention to run."
who push the start button?

"doesn't mean he's still out there monitoring and affecting us."
not important, monitoring or not monitoring.
what important is administrator is looking us and who run the system can stop it anytime and can do any punishment or reward to any part of system created.

"what created God?"
why every creator should have another creator?
finally this chain can not be unlimited and we name the final creator with no creator "God".

"And so on and so on."
we name final creator God.
is unlimited chain possible rationally?

"God is atheist"
interesting saying. agree. thanks

and updated version is:
"there is no atheist but God"

there is a interesting Persian poem:
one day one person wanted to have no guest.
one guest came to his home and knocked the door.
the person in home said:
"no one is here"

why we exist?
is existence possible with no creator?
can "nothing" become "thing" with no creator?

Jul 17 2011:
Let me just say there is a flaw in your thinking, although I don't agree with SR Ahmadi. When you say " but whatever you call the "law enforcer", we still go back to the fact that he is part of the system, bound by the laws he is enforcing." you're missing an important point, that is only true in the context of human law. For example, humans also determine some laws concerning animal life (access to certain areas, reproduction) and in that case we are not under the obligation of respecting those laws because they are not made for us but only by us.
Any god wouldn't have to be within the system of law he had set simply because he wouldn't share our nature, he would be a very different kind of being, related to us not as our equal, but superior, much like the relation we establish with animals.

Apr 22 2011:
This is pretty insightful. Religious people like to claim that everything needs a creator except the creator(huh?) But following their own argument then comes who made the physical laws that allow the creator to exist. That's even further along chain. Nice.

Apr 26 2011:
yes there is chain.
earth created nature, sun created earth, galaxy created sun, big bang created galaxy, water, gas ....
the first thing God created was wisdom (=accepting advice).
more chains is here:http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ (sermon 1, creation of Earth and Sky and the birth of Adam)

but is chain possible unlimited rationally?
philosophers say unlimited chain is impossible.
we name final creator God.
you say unlimited chain is possible rationally?

Jul 26 2011:
Can we really call them laws? A law is an agreement between people on how to behave towards each other in a given situation. Physics could be seen as a set of facts that are just there and we must accept them at our peril if we do not. Example if you jump out of an airplane at 1500 feet and have no parachute you are going to go splat and die. No agreement was made with the fact of gravity it just happens ( by the way I do not recommend any one test this idea LOL). They are there where they came from is inherent in the physical structure of our universe. It is there because the universe exists (does that make any sense?). Well thanks for asking the question PEACE and JOY in your day

Jul 27 2011:
Dear James Turner,
I know difference of human law and natural law.
human has free will and can disobey laws. but nature has not ability of disobey. nature is like a robot with no free will and only do commands.
perhaps name of law for nature be wrong. but changing name does not change the situation. the fact and concept still exist with any name:
our universe shows a special behavior among many possible behaviors.
for example why earth always should turn over sun in the same direction every day?
why we can not change direction of earth?

about jumping our of an airplane please note agreement is for when two part have free will and power to sign or not sign. but we have no power against nature. nature did not ask us how to behave. did you decide which country to be born?
agreement is for when there is free will.
please not absence of free will has no conflict with law. law can exist without free will. example: laws human make for robots.
because we have used to see laws always with free will of disobey so we think law always is with free will.
it is like talking about water with a fish.
yes the are inherent. but how nature got this inherent?

Jul 19 2011:
The universe does not have laws of physics!!
We humans invented them and many others to try and explain our observations of the universe. When a set of laws becomes insufficient, we come up with new models. However, please note that our perception of the universe, wether direct (using our captors) or through man made machines, is so limited, so our laws only try to model what we perceive.

Jul 20 2011:
"The universe does not have laws of physics!!"
do you know difference of Invent and discover?
you know earth and sun and universe were working from billion years before human discover laws of physics.
so how universe worked before human discover such laws?
by little change in laws of physics all the universe will destroy.
many laws of physics are still not discovered. so how universe is now working?
universe does not wait for human invents.
I am not talking about what human made.
I am talking about laws is managing universe very exact.
you know when exactly the new next years starts. this is amazing driving of earth which reach destination at time.

Do you know the difference between invent a description and the reality it is describing? That we discover how something works, and invent a law to describe it, does not mean the "law" describes perfectly such reality, nor that the universe was waiting for us to describe its workings as a "law." We might as well have described it as a property, for example, the property of gravitation, and you would have no way of making such equivocations.

All the rest of your post is nonsense based on not paying attention to what Karim was trying to explain to you. Our models try and represent reality, but reality does not care, nor is it affected by our models. It has no feelings. Reality just is.

Jul 23 2011:
Dear Gabo,
I call invent a description=discovering.
what is invented did not exist before and human make it. at discovery realty exist but human know it and learns how it works and explain one aspect of realty how works.
please explain in your view what is different of realty and Nature?
realty exist if we describe it or not describe it.
I agree you unless this that you say:"laws of physics are property of realty" I disagree this one.

Jul 26 2011:
in my view Nature is collection of all material things.
but realty is all exist that includes material universe (nature) and non-material universe (like the universe we enter in SOME sleep dreams)
something like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
I say realty is collection of all universes.

about my basis I can refer to some facts that can not be explained in material universe.
for example deja vu:
"Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[5] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

or NDE
or some sleep dreams
or such facts against established principles of science
and all support the human being material body+non-material aspect (soul)

Apr 19 2011:
strangely, our universe does not have laws of physics. laws are man made. what exists in the world is some sort of order, some sort of predictability, some sort of regularity. laws are just man made attempts to describe these regularities in human-understandable format.

Jul 16 2011:
What he is saying is that the acknowledgement of truth and the ability to understand truth are not the same. I think a similar way to help you understand from your own perspective would be to ask you how Allah created the universe. Not the action itself but the mechanics. It is an acknowledgement of the limitation of man's capacity to reason.

Do not attempt to engage S.R. Ahmadi in an intellectual discussion. Simply accept that, for him, all answers come from Allah, the Koran is inerrant, he is always right and anything that does not conform to his understanding is always wrong.

Accept that there is absolutely no possibility of shifting his understanding in any way. He is (in his own mind) simply "right."

If you do find yourself in one of his threads (for example by clicking on the picture of a "Recent Commenter") wish him a pleasant good afternoon and quickly and quietly, leave.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD YOU ATTEMPT TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION WITH HIM - just nod politely, smile, and leave (never to return.)

Jul 27 2011:
Dear Thomas,
1-first wisdom then Allah,
2-In some debates I have changed my views for example about evolution but first I need proof and evidence not dogma about materialism and disbelieving God without any proof and so on. what I see is only dogma against God and Islam with no proof. you have grown with TV and movie and books feeding from one source and they have carved their beliefs to your brain and I do not see chance they change.
3-if you can not prove some thing do not accuse others. this is not my problem.
4-always proof and evidence is true.
5-you have send many post to me but you never showed any proof and only repeated your beliefs (dogma) 6-you never engaged any rational argument with me and only accusing me.

Jul 11 2011:
the Big Bang theory has some assumptions including this:
The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the cosmological principle.[citation needed] The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[43] Also, general relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of various aspects of the Big Bang theory.[notes 4]

If the large-scale Universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the CMB.[notes 5] The Universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[44]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Underlying_assumptions

Jul 16 2011:
Because the question has hidden premises. Because the question seems a lot like the wrong question. Because your belief in a god does not change anything. because there is no need to assume anything other than the universe being what it is to "account" for such laws.

Those who don't believe in gods should deconstruct and find your hidden premises rather than try and answer a question whose answer might just be: the universe has physical laws because either they define what the universe is, or they are an emerging property of some more basic fundamental properties of what makes the universe what it is.

This is like asking: "why does matter have mass." Well, mass is a measure of matter. So the question does not make sense. Why shouldn't mass be part and parcel with matter?

"Because the question seems a lot like the wrong question."
what is wrong in this question?

"because there is no need to assume anything other than the universe being what it is to "account" for such laws."
so there is no need for any question. this is also a question.

"Those who don't believe in gods should deconstruct and find your hidden promises rather than try and answer a question whose answer might just be:"
mine is not hide. please only reply the question.

"the universe has physical laws because either they define what the universe is"
!!. laws exist because they define? define is result of laws not the cause of laws.

"or they are an emerging property of some more basic fundamental properties of what makes the universe what it is."
OK. no problem. so we have a chain of causes. so what is the cause of "some more basic fundamental properties"?

"This is like asking: "why does matter have mass.""
no it is not like this. mass is property and entity of matter. but law are not. laws of physics made the universe. and laws of physics are not property and entity of universe.
this is question is not of kind of question "why matter have mass"

please see:
Stephen Hawking:
" the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
it means laws and universe are two. not like mass and matter which are one. when you see sky is blue. sky and blue are not two separate thing. but when one thing makes other think they are two.
mass and matter are one thing. but mass is an attribute of matter. laws of physics are not attributes of universe.
but if one ask"why universe is large?" then you are OK. large is attribute of universe and question makes no sense.

It is silly not to read the whole answer before responding. It is sillier to read only a few words in a sentence and answer without understanding the complete sentence. So read and understand before attempting to answer. Your lack of reading comprehension is annoying.

If the big bang is the product of the laws of physics it does not mean that the universe and the laws are separated. Bricks are built out of clays, and their properties thus depend on the properties of clay, but not all clay is used to build bricks. That does not mean that bricks are not made of clay, nor that their properties are separated from the properties of clay. The laws of physics are either an emerging property of more basic properties of reality, or they are such basic properties of reality. So, who said that our universe was something apart from reality? Who said that if the universe big banged because of the laws of physics then it is separate from the laws of physics?

Why should these laws have a cause? If they had a cause then why should the most fundamental properties of reality have a cause? Why can't they just be? Why can't lines of causation stop in reality, in fundamental properties, rather than in a magical being? No reason at all. Only superstitious people who want to hold to their delusions.

Knowing or not knowing if the big bang happened does not mean people stops thinking. It means people don't know. That's very different. And not knowing something does not mean that we have to accept a magical being as an explanation. It just means we don't know. I told you before. Some time ago we humans didn't know much about thunder. Did that make Thor or Zeus real? Of course not. Not knowing if the big bang happened or why, or how, does not make your god, nor any other gods, real either.

Jul 18 2011:
By separate I mean separate identity. But they are together.
Universe is not built out of laws. Universe is built out of matter. But laws control the shape of universe.
Example:
You have some steel wool with no order. Then you near a magnet and they find a ordered shape. The magnet field is like the laws of physics for universe.
Matter without laws of physics are only some random matter.
Example:
cyclotron makes some artificial laws for particles inside it. When cyclotron is off those laws disappear.

Our universe is inside a huge cyclotron which makes laws of physics for our universe that shape random matters.

Universe is made of matter and properties is like properties of matter.

What you men by realty? What is its exact definition?
realty made laws or laws made realty? What is that? Realty is God?
Who/what made realty?
I think my mean of separate and yours are not same.
"Why should these laws have a cause? "
Is it possible logically have no cause?
"most fundamental properties of reality"
What is this? First define this.
"Why can't they just be?'
Being needs a reason. You know our universe has a start (near 14.5 B years ago) so one day they were no and they they became. So there is a reason (cause) for a nothing >thing.
First defined realty and fundumental properties. If you have no define so you are believing with no reason that is called Delusion.

"No reason at all."
This is a Delusion. Please let people think and find reason.

"And not knowing something does not mean that we have to accept a magical being as an explanation."
Yes science does not know. But the only way of knowledge is not science. We also have logic and wisdom and we can understand causation law.

"Did that make Thor or Zeus real?"
People call causes in chain of causes different names. But all causes finally reach a final cause. Also Big Bang is a cause in chain of causes.
Yesterday named Zeus and today named Big Bang and tomorrow named other.
But when human finds final cause?
Also unlimited

"Not knowing if the big bang happened or why, or how, does not make your god, nor any other gods, real either."
Yes. But we can understand there is a final cause. (any name you like: Zeous, nature, laws of physics, fundamental, realty, Big Bang, final cause, God, …)

Jul 18 2011:
1. They are not separate. My clay example is better than your magnet example because the universe and the laws are inseparable. You can separate the magnet from the steel wool. Laws do not control anything, laws are descriptions of how the matter/energy/whatever conundrum works, not commands that they have to obey. Read this carefully before you say something nonsensical like "then can universe disobey?", because if the laws describe how something works, it means that's how it works. If they were commands then the universe could "disobey." Got it? Please understand this well first. I repeat, understand this first.
2. Reality is everything that exists. No need for reality being "made."
3. Why should there not be some fundamental properties/laws that require no cause? Why would this not be possible? That's what "fundamental" means, something that lies at the bottom of whatever, be that a chain of causes, or whatever else. That's where you want to put your delusion (your god), while I rather put the fundamental laws, which are, again, abstractions of how reality operates, not independent orders commanded by some overzealous immense immaterial being. Descriptions of how things work as laws do not mean that these descriptions are decrees. I repeat, understand this before answering.
4. I don't care whatsoever if unlimited chains of causes are philosophically impossible or not. I have not proposed such a thing.
5. Your whole discourse is based on equivocation and misunderstandings of both science and philosophy. It is useless and fallacious. My answer again: laws are either the emerging result of more fundamental properties of reality (of which our universe is part), or part of such fundamental properties. Laws are thus properties of the universe, just like mass is a property of matter. There is no need to stop chains of causes outside of reality and into some intelligent and immensely powerful being that has never being shown to exist.

Jul 20 2011:
I disagree you. laws of physics are not property of universe. if so there is a paradox:
please note I do not mean the magnet itself. I mean what changes the wool. I mean the magnetic field as example of laws of physics.

"You can separate the magnet from the steel wool. "
also laws of physics can be separated from universe and matter remains.

"laws are descriptions of how the matter/energy/whatever conundrum works"
yes. but why the matter of universe should obey the laws?

"read this carefully before you say something stupid like "then can universe disobey?""
in other comments I said about the enforcer of laws.

"If they were commands then the universe could "disobey." "
not anything receiving command has the ability of disobey. like robot.
human has free will and can disobey.

"because if the laws describe how something works"
yes. but why universe obey the laws?
also you please understand me.

"2. Reality is everything that exists."
OK. existence.

" No need for reality being "made.""
this is a claim. you know our universe not existed before Big Bang. any way universe has a start. you mean nothing becomes thing with no cause?
do you disagree cause law?

"3. Why should there not be some fundamental properties/laws that require no cause?"
for cause law. universe has start. why started? it is cause. we go back in cause chain.

"Why would this not be possible? "
it is irrational. also science say universe has a start. does your wisdom accept a start with no cause?

"That's where you want to put your delusion (your god), while I rather put the fundamental laws"
OK. so your "fundamental " is my God only in two name. anyway there is a final cause with no cause. unless you can prove unlimited chain of causes is possible which philosophers could not yet.

does your "fundamental laws" has intelligence and the ability of design? if yes it is the God if not so who the universe is designed?

Jul 20 2011:
1. You may disagree as much as you want, yet you won't change reality. The laws are inseparable from the universe. Tell you what, you show me an experiment where they separate gravitational forces from matter, and I might start thinking whether you are right or wrong. In the meantime, you are plainly wrong.
2. I told you not to make this nonsensical question. The universe is not obeying laws, the universe is being what it is. We conceptualize how the universe behaves as "laws." But they are descriptions, not actual commands. Can you understand the difference at all? Asking why the universe obeys is nonsensical because it is like asking why does matter obey the law of having mass.
3. It does not matter if the universe had a beginning, that does not mean it was "made" by somebody. If you ask "who made this" you are already forcing us to accept your premise (that someone has to do everything). It is a fallacy called charged question.
4. It is not irrational to think that there are fundamental properties that require no cause. It is irrational to think that there would not be fundamental properties. You said yourself that there can't be infinite regression of causes, didn't you? So, take a decision is it possible or not to have an infinite regression of causes? If not, then there can be fundamental properties that require no cause. That the universe started does not mean there is no fundamental properties requiring no causes.
5. Nope, your god is not fundamental "laws," nor properties, my "fundamentals" are in this reality, not outside of it, no intelligence, not beings, no magic.
6. Why should the universe be designed?

Please don't answer until you have made sure you understand what I am saying. I think I am repeating too much.

Jul 20 2011:
"4. I don't care whatsoever if unlimited chains of causes are philosophically impossible or not. I have not proposed such a thing."
but this is a real question in front of you and escaping questions does not solve them.

"Your whole discourse is based on equivocation and misunderstandings of both science and philosophy."
perhaps. also you perhaps.

"laws are either the emerging result of more fundamental properties of reality"
no problem. so I repeat the same question about " fundamental properties of reality"

"Laws are thus properties of the universe"
I disagree this. because if you read the Big Bang theory it says laws of physics existed before universe and the laws made universe so laws are not properties of universe. universe is made of matter under control of laws of physics.
if laws are properties of universe so you should change the BB theory and you should reply why Big Bang happened?
Stephen Hawking:
" the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
consequence means that laws are not properties of universe. because properties of a thing can not exist when that thing still not exist.

also if we assume laws are properties (your scenario) then Big Band is consequence of what?

"mass is a property of matter.'
agree

"There is no need to stop chains of causes outside of reality "
final cause is inside realty.

"never being shown to exist."
are you sure? Avesind in book Asfar showed it well.

Jul 20 2011:
I already said somewhere that there is no reason why a chain of causes should not end in this reality, rather than go to a magical realm that has never being shown to exist.

There is no "perhaps," your discourse is based on equivocation. You want "natural laws" to mean "commands by a god," when all they mean is "human concept trying to describe how the universe/reality works." Pretending that they are the same as our edicts is a plain and clear equivocation.

No matter how much you disagree, read carefully: that our universe was formed because of the laws of physics does not mean that it is separated from them. Our laws describe how reality (our universe is all we can test of this reality!) behaves. Thus, the universe has been what we tested and what our "laws" describe. Thus it can't be separated from such laws. Again, laws describe how the universe works. How can the way the universe works be separated from the universe itself? Be careful and understand this: Laws are not commands, they are description of how reality works, which we discover by studying this universe. Thus they describe how the universe works. Saying that you can separate the laws from the universe is like saying you can separate the roundness from a wheel. We know wheels work because they are round, we could call this the "law of roundness." That does not mean that the wheel "obeys" such law. It is just its inseparable property, which we describe as a law.

Got it? Please now don't answer unless you understand what I said. OK? If you insist on the same mistakes I will just stop answering.
Man, go study science first. It takes years of learning, and it is thus nonsensical for you to come just assuming from a few words about the big bang, and an equivocation with the word "law."

Jul 23 2011:
Dear Gabo,
I understand what you say. But understanding you not mean accepting anything you say. And disagreeing not mean not understanding.
Please use proof and evidence and do not accuse me to I not understand.

"I might start thinking whether you are right or wrong.'
Please say the result.

Yes we can not change realty.

you made an example:
brick is made of soil. yes properties of brick is like properties of soil. but what determines the shape (behavior) of brick? there is some law that determine the shape of brick. those laws are not properties of brick.
for example:
"the shape of brick should be cube" this is a statement. but to apply this statement (or law) there is a human or machine needed to apply this law. I call it obey. OK you offer any other name. but this fact exist in universe.
Stephen Hawking also theory of Big Bang says:
" “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics"
if we consider your hypothesis then laws of physics are properties of universe.
if x is property of y then y can not be consequence of x. because property of a thing can not exist before that thing itself exist. it is paradox. when a property exist that the thing itself exist. laws of physics can not be existed after BB and at the same time laws are cause of BB. this is paradox. a cause should exist before effect. not after it.
this proves laws are not properties of universe.

"The universe is not obeying laws"
Perhaps I not used proper words. But the concept remains true. There is some rules like gravity (two matter should absorb each other). Consider another rule that I make it: two matter should repel each other. Why universe does not behave as my rule? I call it obeying a rule. What name you suggest?

No paradox. See what happens if I say:
"Planets are the consequence of the laws of gravity"

Sure, the planets would not exist without gravity "first," but gravity can be part of something more fundamental to the planets, their matter/mass. Thus gravity can be both, what shaped the planets, and a property of these planets (actually of their mass). Right? But I am still open for you to show me a planet that was shaped by gravity, yet has no gravity itself.

Apply that to the universe. The universe is part of a bigger/deeper nature, with some natural laws/properties. If such properties gave it the form/shape of a universe, it does not mean that the properties are not also part and property of the universe, your equivocation notwithstanding.

Jul 23 2011:
"We conceptualize how the universe behaves as "laws." '
Agree and this is science. But I want to ask why?

"But they are descriptions, not actual commands."
Agree. They are descriptions. What you define actual command? Command is only for human? In my view a law of physics is a command. For example the law of gravity. Why two matter should absorb each other? This is not amazing? While there is nothing between them!

"Can you understand the difference at all?"
Yes I understand. But I think problem is words.

"Asking why the universe obeys is nonsensical because it is like asking why does matter obey the law of having mass."
This two question are not from one type. You first should prove laws of physics are properties of universe. Universe is made of matter so you should prove laws of physics are properties of matter.
If a thing is always along with other thing this not mean it is property of other even if they are along each other for 100 Billion years.
Property is what not exist when entity not exist. But laws of physics existed before Big bang. Because those laws made our universe.

"3. It does not matter if the universe had a beginning, that does not mean it was "made" by somebody. If you ask "who made this" you are already forcing us to accept your premise (that someone has to do everything). It is a fallacy called charged question."
Agree. You are correct. Better to ask what? OK? I mean the cause.

"So, take a decision is it possible or not to have an infinite regression of causes?"
I say: "there can't be infinite regression of causes" and we call the final cause with no cause the God. If you call it "fundamental properties" OK. They are the same with two name.

"Nope, your god is not fundamental "laws," nor properties, my "fundamentals" are in this reality"
My God is both in and out of reality.

Jul 23 2011:
.
You say:
"For example the law of gravity. Why two matter should absorb each other? This is not amazing? While there is nothing between them!"

I say:
Why should they not absorb each other? Why should they be commanded to do so rather than such thing just be the way nature works? How do you know there is nothing between them? Where did your knowledge of relativity go, since you studied physics?

You say:
"and we call the final cause with no cause the God"

I say:
So, "God" is the fundamental properties of reality, our universe included? Fine by me, as long as you don't pretend that this "God" is outside of reality and commanding stuff, and intelligent, and worried about our sexual lifestyles. After all, I doubt gravitation has intelligence, and is worried about sexual lifestyles, and wants to burn me in hell if I don't believe in it, or can give me eternal life, or has prophets ...

Jul 23 2011:
"6. Why should the universe be designed?"
Please first define design and then please read this short book. (it is very valuable and is not from human. It is from God about design of world. make sure it worth the time of reading it.)http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/

"Please don't answer until you have made sure you understand what I am saying. "
I did my try. Please forgive me.

"I already said somewhere that there is no reason why a chain of causes should not end in this reality"
agree. but there is proofs from philosopher that there is a final cause. I am not a philosopher and this proof is not simple. But I quote from philosophers.

"You want "natural laws" to mean "commands by a god," when all they mean is "human concept trying to describe how the universe/reality works.""
I agree you that this is Pretending . But not that there is two kind of natural laws:
1- human concept trying to describe how the universe/reality works.
1- Behavior of universe/reality regardless of human describe them or not.

If human not describe them they not exist? They depend of human?
I mean laws that exist and control realty. Not what human describes.

Any name you select finally there is some laws that universe/reality behave exactly as those laws describe. (even before human describe them)
What you call this fact? I call obey. What you call?
But about what/who enforce those laws I agree I had Pretending.

"that our universe was formed because of the laws of physics does not mean that it is separated from them. "
This is my proof: A result can not exist before its cause. Property [laws] can not exist before existence of entity [reality/universe].
If matter has mass. Mass can not exist before matter exist. Universe is made by laws of physics. If laws are property of universe please solve this parado

You said:
"I mean laws that exist and control realty. Not what human describes."

I say:
I know what you mean. I have tried to fix your mistake. There are no laws that control reality. reality has properties, thus it behaves according to such properties. We have conceptualize the way the universe works as laws, but they don't depend on us discovering or describing them. How many times should I repeat this?

You said:
"What you call this fact? I call obey. What you call?"

I say:
I call this fact "the universe works this way because that's the way it is."

I repeat, planets are part of the matter of our universe shaped by gravitation. Does this mean that gravitation is separated from the planets? Can we say instead that the planets are shaped by gravitation yet gravitation is still part of the planets (ultimately their mass)? Well, our universe is a part of nature shaped by basic properties ("laws" of physics) of such nature itself, but that does not mean that the universe is separated from these properties. Clear now? If I say "the planets formed as a consequence of the laws of gravity" does it mean that the "laws" of gravity are separated from the planets? Well, if your answer is no, then you can see that talking about the universe as a consequence of natural "laws" does not make it separated from such "laws," other than by a semantic misunderstanding.

Jul 23 2011:
If laws are property of universe please solve this paradox.I showed my proof and I did not accuse you do not understand me. Please show your proof and do not accuse me. Proof and evidence and talk in peace is better .

"laws describe how the universe works. "
Agree.
"How can the way the universe works be separated from the universe itself? "
Example: laws of driving. Say cars should not pass red light. The laws are separate of behavior of cars. Also law of gravity say two matter should absorb each other.

"Laws are not commands"
Why? Actually laws are command. Because we always have seen universe obey laws we think they are not commands. It like ask a fish: what is water?
We have used to see every day universe obey commands. But if one day earth say I want to change my direction around sun then you see it is not obeying. Yes this is stupid but not impossible. Why universe every day should behave the same as yesterday?

"they are description of how reality works,"
description and law and description are the same. Why we fight on words?
Ok. Lets ask: why our universe work as descriptions of physics?

"Saying that you can separate the laws from the universe is like saying you can separate the roundness from a wheel."
No they are not the same. Laws are not property of universe. You need to first prove laws are properties of universe. You only repeat this with no proof.
I need proof. Not repeat.

"wheels work because they are round"
This is not a law. A law predicts the behavior of nature.
Roundness does not mean working of wheel.
A wheel can be round but not work. But in law if terms of law are met the prediction of law will be done certainly.

Round is property of wheel. But laws of physics are not properties of universe.
What about experiment of magnetic field?

"Man, go study science first. '
I spent at least 7 years of my life studying physics and working in lab.

Jul 23 2011:
There is no paradox. I told you already. If our universe is part of a bigger nature, then we can think of these "laws" as properties of such nature that shape parts of it into universes, such as ours. Thus, our universe, as any part of nature, cannot be separated from these properties. I don't need to prove that the laws are properties of the universe. You have to prove that they are not, because so far nothing indicates otherwise. You can't just come and repeat "laws are not property of universe" without showing any proof yourself other than semantics, then ask me to prove otherwise. Here's a paradox for you, if our universe can be separated from those properties we have called "laws," why then were we able to "discover" them by studying how the universe works?

Equivocation example, human laws are not the same as laws of physics. I can drive against driving laws. The universe can't stop being what it is. We fight over words because you are making an equivocation based on words. "Properties" cannot be equivocated as "laws" can. Just see your mistake comparing driving with workings of the universe.

The universe behaves the same every day because the universe is what it is, not what it is not. This is tautologically true. There is no obeying, there is just being. The "laws" of physics are called so because of our original preconceptions. Language has limitations, preconceptions have limitations.

I doubt you studied physics very well. You don't seem very familiar with modern physics (like relativity).

Please read all my answers again. You are just not understanding. You accuse me of repeating, but I repeat because you repeat.

If you just repeat again, rather than understanding, I will just stop answering. No point in continuing. Enough already for other readers to understand, even if you don't.

Jul 26 2011:
"There is no paradox. I told you already. If our universe is part of a bigger nature, then we can think of these "laws" as properties of such nature that shape parts of it into universes, such as ours."
this can be true and not paradox. but if in this case laws be parts of bigger nature and not properties of our universe. please note we are talking about our universe. you say laws are properties of our universe and I say although the laws and universe are together but laws are not properties of our universe (but can be properties of anything out of our universe like a bigger nature).

"Thus, our universe, as any part of nature, cannot be separated from these properties."
why? this thus is irrelevant of its previous argument.

"I don't need to prove that the laws are properties of the universe. "
so do not claim it. you can do not accept me but at least do not say what you cant or not want to prove.

"You have to prove that they are not'
I showed some proof (magnetic field experiment. and paradox of how property of a thing can exist before that thing itself exist? according to universe is result of laws of physics)

"if our universe can be separated from those properties we have called "laws," why then were we able to "discover" them by studying how the universe works?"
discovering something is irrelevant of its being separate or not separate?
whats relation?
human can discover properties and separated or not separated things.
also you still have not proved they are properties. this is

If you say "properties" you are already forcing us to accept your premise (that laws are properties of universe). It is a fallacy called charged statement.

"Equivocation example, human laws are not the same as laws of physics. I can drive against driving laws. The universe can't stop being what it is."
this is related to having or not having "free will". any way both driving laws and nature laws are only some statements. who do laws is different are different. not laws.

I don't have to "prove" that the laws are properties of the universe. Why? Because this is tautologically true. I don't have to prove that red is the color we perceive at wavelengths between X and Y. Those wavelengths are part of the definition. What defines our universe, the way it behaves, we have described as "laws." But nothing indicates them to be something separated from the universe. Nothing, just your misplaced semantics and stubbornness at taking the word "law" too seriously.

I did not say "natural laws are *****exclusive***** properties of the universe" I said "natural laws are properties of the universe." Please note the difference. Gravity is not an exclusive property of planets, but they are part and parcel with planets as much as with any matter/mass. Gravity comes with mass, and there is no way around. Therefore, gravity is a property of mass, thus gravity is a property of planets. Not exclusive properties of planets, but as inseparable from planets as from any bigger nature. Got it now? I don't have to prove it. It is obvious. Unless you can show me one instance where they can separate our universe from its natural laws, then you might have some reason. But semantics are not reasons. Again, study. We call these behaviour "laws," but they are not truly "laws." We conceptualize them as such, but they are not like human laws at all. Please get it now.

Jul 26 2011:
"The universe behaves the same every day because the universe is what it is"
this is not the reply of this question. any behavior has a cause. this reply "because the universe is what it is" is not a satisfying reply to this question. behavior is different of property.

"There is no obeying"
proof?

"there is just being"
any being has a reason. the job of science is to find reasons. if some one ask why we die for caner and some one reply "there is just being". so never cause of cancer will be found.

"The "laws" of physics are called so because of our original preconceptions. "
physics professors were not stupid they could use word "property" in their language.

"I doubt you studied physics very well. "
perhaps. also I doubt you understand difference of law and property.

Jul 26 2011:
I don't care if you find the answer satisfactory or not. Things are what they are. Aren't they?

Physicists call them "laws" because of historical reasons and tradition. It is easier for them to understand what they are talking about, than to change the whole system. In molecular biology we have something called "the central dogma." The word "dogma" was a big mistake because there are no dogmas in science, and the name has caused lots of confusion. Yet, the concept has survived with that problematic name for decades because it is easy to refer to it that way than try and agree on something else. Molecular Biologists are not stupid, but we still talk about "the central dogma."

I understand perfectly the difference between laws and properties. You don't understand the difference between what we call "laws" in nature, and what we call "laws" in human endeavours.

I know you don't understand. No need to reconsider. You just demonstrate it again and again.

Jul 26 2011:
"(That link to "philosophy" neither shows any magical realm, nor any magical being"
The magical being is the primary cause of everything.
I think you did not read carefully.
"
In the previous chapter, we reached the conclusion that the highest and most primary principle of the
universe or the world in general is a cause necessary in essence, to which the chain of causes leads.
Now, the new question is this: 'Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first
source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?' Putting this question in a
philosophical form, we say: ' Is the efficient cause of the world the same as the material cause, or it is
not?'"

Please read chapter four.
Chapter Four: Matter or God.

"There are no laws that control reality. reality has properties,"
Oh my God! Please prove this or do not repeat this. This is only your belief with no proof. Why you enforce your belief?

"thus it behaves according to such properties."
Behavior can not caused by property.
Any behavior has a cause.
What is your define of behavior?

"We have conceptualize the way the universe works as laws, but they don't depend on us discovering or describing them."
Agree this. work of universe needs an enforcer. Work of universe is limited in especial rules. Why universe works only in this limited way?

"I call this fact "the universe works this way because that's the way it is.""
This is a circular reply and is not the real reply.
Any working has a reason. Also work of universe is very exact. Why universe not work in other way? Why speed of light is fix and is not other speed?
I know universe works in this way. But why in this way and so exact and designed?

"Does this mean that gravitation is separated from the planets?"
Yes. Because you yourself say "universe shaped by gravitation" this means gravitation should have been existed before universe to can shape it. How can gravitation be property of universe and shape it at the same

Jul 26 2011:
I read your link all right. It is fallacious and proves nothing.

No need to prove. It is obvious that the laws refer to how the universe behaves, thus part of what the universe is.

The workings of the universe don't need an enforcer. Why would them exactly? Because you misunderstand the word "law" when referring to nature's behaviour? That's just ridiculous. The universe works in this "limited" way because that's what defines it. This is not circular. It is tautological.

You must be kidding me. So, gravitation is not part of a planet because gravitation shaped the planet? really?

Gravitation can be a property of a planet, but does not need to be an exclusive property of a planet, does it? If the universe is shaped by gravitation it does not mean that gravitation is not a property of the universe, it just means it is not an exclusive property of the universe. Planets don't lose their mass after being shaped by gravitation, nor do they lose their gravitation. Same with the universe. Some mass gets to be shaped as planets, some mass does not get to be shapes as planets. Gravitation is still a property of any mass, be it shaped as planets or not. Same with the universe.

Jul 26 2011:
"Does this mean that gravitation is separated from the planets?"
Yes. Because you yourself say "universe shaped by gravitation" this means gravitation should have been existed before universe to can shape it. How can gravitation be property of universe and shape it at the same time?
For example if you shape a pot so you exist before pot exist.(but soil exist before you. But soil is not pot). So what exist before some thing is separate of that thing.
ANY PROPERTY OF A THING CAN NOT EXIST BEFORE THAT THING ITSELF EXISTED.

"Well, our universe is a part of nature shaped by basic properties ("laws" of physics) of such nature itself, but that does not mean that the universe is separated from these properties. "
There is a contradiction between;
1- "our universe is a part of nature shaped by basic properties ("laws" of physics) of such nature itself"
2- that does not mean that the universe is separated from these properties
Both can not be correct at the same time. If you accept 1 automatically 2 is wrong. If you accept laws are out of universe and made universe so before universe exist that laws existed. So laws are separate.

"If I say "the planets formed as a consequence of the laws of gravity" does it mean that the "laws" of gravity are separated from the planets?"
Yes. Because so laws existed before planets exist. And this means separation.

Also I have a new question:
Why that bigger nature has laws of physics?

You see that there is a chain of causes and finally you should accept a primary cause or prove that unlimited chain of causes are possible (which is proved to be impossible by philosophers but I cant explain short).